sapir whorf hypothesis gcse

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis)

Mia Belle Frothingham

Author, Researcher, Science Communicator

BA with minors in Psychology and Biology, MRes University of Edinburgh

Mia Belle Frothingham is a Harvard University graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in Sciences with minors in biology and psychology

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

There are about seven thousand languages heard around the world – they all have different sounds, vocabularies, and structures. As you know, language plays a significant role in our lives.

But one intriguing question is – can it actually affect how we think?

It is widely thought that reality and how one perceives the world is expressed in spoken words and are precisely the same as reality.

That is, perception and expression are understood to be synonymous, and it is assumed that speech is based on thoughts. This idea believes that what one says depends on how the world is encoded and decoded in the mind.

However, many believe the opposite.

In that, what one perceives is dependent on the spoken word. Basically, that thought depends on language, not the other way around.

What Is The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

Twentieth-century linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf are known for this very principle and its popularization. Their joint theory, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or, more commonly, the Theory of Linguistic Relativity, holds great significance in all scopes of communication theories.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the grammatical and verbal structure of a person’s language influences how they perceive the world. It emphasizes that language either determines or influences one’s thoughts.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that people experience the world based on the structure of their language, and that linguistic categories shape and limit cognitive processes. It proposes that differences in language affect thought, perception, and behavior, so speakers of different languages think and act differently.

For example, different words mean various things in other languages. Not every word in all languages has an exact one-to-one translation in a foreign language.

Because of these small but crucial differences, using the wrong word within a particular language can have significant consequences.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is sometimes called “linguistic relativity” or the “principle of linguistic relativity.” So while they have slightly different names, they refer to the same basic proposal about the relationship between language and thought.

How Language Influences Culture

Culture is defined by the values, norms, and beliefs of a society. Our culture can be considered a lens through which we undergo the world and develop a shared meaning of what occurs around us.

The language that we create and use is in response to the cultural and societal needs that arose. In other words, there is an apparent relationship between how we talk and how we perceive the world.

One crucial question that many intellectuals have asked is how our society’s language influences its culture.

Linguist and anthropologist Edward Sapir and his then-student Benjamin Whorf were interested in answering this question.

Together, they created the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that our thought processes predominantly determine how we look at the world.

Our language restricts our thought processes – our language shapes our reality. Simply, the language that we use shapes the way we think and how we see the world.

Since the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that our language use shapes our perspective of the world, people who speak different languages have different views of the world.

In the 1920s, Benjamin Whorf was a Yale University graduate student studying with linguist Edward Sapir, who was considered the father of American linguistic anthropology.

Sapir was responsible for documenting and recording the cultures and languages of many Native American tribes disappearing at an alarming rate. He and his predecessors were well aware of the close relationship between language and culture.

Anthropologists like Sapir need to learn the language of the culture they are studying to understand the worldview of its speakers truly. Whorf believed that the opposite is also true, that language affects culture by influencing how its speakers think.

His hypothesis proposed that the words and structures of a language influence how its speaker behaves and feels about the world and, ultimately, the culture itself.

Simply put, Whorf believed that you see the world differently from another person who speaks another language due to the specific language you speak.

Human beings do not live in the matter-of-fact world alone, nor solitary in the world of social action as traditionally understood, but are very much at the pardon of the certain language which has become the medium of communication and expression for their society.

To a large extent, the real world is unconsciously built on habits in regard to the language of the group. We hear and see and otherwise experience broadly as we do because the language habits of our community predispose choices of interpretation.

Studies & Examples

The lexicon, or vocabulary, is the inventory of the articles a culture speaks about and has classified to understand the world around them and deal with it effectively.

For example, our modern life is dictated for many by the need to travel by some vehicle – cars, buses, trucks, SUVs, trains, etc. We, therefore, have thousands of words to talk about and mention, including types of models, vehicles, parts, or brands.

The most influential aspects of each culture are similarly reflected in the dictionary of its language. Among the societies living on the islands in the Pacific, fish have significant economic and cultural importance.

Therefore, this is reflected in the rich vocabulary that describes all aspects of the fish and the environments that islanders depend on for survival.

For example, there are over 1,000 fish species in Palau, and Palauan fishers knew, even long before biologists existed, details about the anatomy, behavior, growth patterns, and habitat of most of them – far more than modern biologists know today.

Whorf’s studies at Yale involved working with many Native American languages, including Hopi. He discovered that the Hopi language is quite different from English in many ways, especially regarding time.

Western cultures and languages view times as a flowing river that carries us continuously through the present, away from the past, and to the future.

Our grammar and system of verbs reflect this concept with particular tenses for past, present, and future.

We perceive this concept of time as universal in that all humans see it in the same way.

Although a speaker of Hopi has very different ideas, their language’s structure both reflects and shapes the way they think about time. Seemingly, the Hopi language has no present, past, or future tense; instead, they divide the world into manifested and unmanifest domains.

The manifested domain consists of the physical universe, including the present, the immediate past, and the future; the unmanifest domain consists of the remote past and the future and the world of dreams, thoughts, desires, and life forces.

Also, there are no words for minutes, minutes, or days of the week. Native Hopi speakers often had great difficulty adapting to life in the English-speaking world when it came to being on time for their job or other affairs.

It is due to the simple fact that this was not how they had been conditioned to behave concerning time in their Hopi world, which followed the phases of the moon and the movements of the sun.

Today, it is widely believed that some aspects of perception are affected by language.

One big problem with the original Sapir-Whorf hypothesis derives from the idea that if a person’s language has no word for a specific concept, then that person would not understand that concept.

Honestly, the idea that a mother tongue can restrict one’s understanding has been largely unaccepted. For example, in German, there is a term that means to take pleasure in another person’s unhappiness.

While there is no translatable equivalent in English, it just would not be accurate to say that English speakers have never experienced or would not be able to comprehend this emotion.

Just because there is no word for this in the English language does not mean English speakers are less equipped to feel or experience the meaning of the word.

Not to mention a “chicken and egg” problem with the theory.

Of course, languages are human creations, very much tools we invented and honed to suit our needs. Merely showing that speakers of diverse languages think differently does not tell us whether it is the language that shapes belief or the other way around.

Supporting Evidence

On the other hand, there is hard evidence that the language-associated habits we acquire play a role in how we view the world. And indeed, this is especially true for languages that attach genders to inanimate objects.

There was a study done that looked at how German and Spanish speakers view different things based on their given gender association in each respective language.

The results demonstrated that in describing things that are referred to as masculine in Spanish, speakers of the language marked them as having more male characteristics like “strong” and “long.” Similarly, these same items, which use feminine phrasings in German, were noted by German speakers as effeminate, like “beautiful” and “elegant.”

The findings imply that speakers of each language have developed preconceived notions of something being feminine or masculine, not due to the objects” characteristics or appearances but because of how they are categorized in their native language.

It is important to remember that the Theory of Linguistic Relativity (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) also successfully achieves openness. The theory is shown as a window where we view the cognitive process, not as an absolute.

It is set forth to look at a phenomenon differently than one usually would. Furthermore, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is very simple and logically sound. Understandably, one’s atmosphere and culture will affect decoding.

Likewise, in studies done by the authors of the theory, many Native American tribes do not have a word for particular things because they do not exist in their lives. The logical simplism of this idea of relativism provides parsimony.

Truly, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis makes sense. It can be utilized in describing great numerous misunderstandings in everyday life. When a Pennsylvanian says “yuns,” it does not make any sense to a Californian, but when examined, it is just another word for “you all.”

The Linguistic Relativity Theory addresses this and suggests that it is all relative. This concept of relativity passes outside dialect boundaries and delves into the world of language – from different countries and, consequently, from mind to mind.

Is language reality honestly because of thought, or is it thought which occurs because of language? The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis very transparently presents a view of reality being expressed in language and thus forming in thought.

The principles rehashed in it show a reasonable and even simple idea of how one perceives the world, but the question is still arguable: thought then language or language then thought?

Modern Relevance

Regardless of its age, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or the Linguistic Relativity Theory, has continued to force itself into linguistic conversations, even including pop culture.

The idea was just recently revisited in the movie “Arrival,” – a science fiction film that engagingly explores the ways in which an alien language can affect and alter human thinking.

And even if some of the most drastic claims of the theory have been debunked or argued against, the idea has continued its relevance, and that does say something about its importance.

Hypotheses, thoughts, and intellectual musings do not need to be totally accurate to remain in the public eye as long as they make us think and question the world – and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does precisely that.

The theory does not only make us question linguistic theory and our own language but also our very existence and how our perceptions might shape what exists in this world.

There are generalities that we can expect every person to encounter in their day-to-day life – in relationships, love, work, sadness, and so on. But thinking about the more granular disparities experienced by those in diverse circumstances, linguistic or otherwise, helps us realize that there is more to the story than ours.

And beautifully, at the same time, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis reiterates the fact that we are more alike than we are different, regardless of the language we speak.

Isn’t it just amazing that linguistic diversity just reveals to us how ingenious and flexible the human mind is – human minds have invented not one cognitive universe but, indeed, seven thousand!

Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis?. American anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.

Whorf, B. L. (1952). Language, mind, and reality. ETC: A review of general semantics, 167-188.

Whorf, B. L. (1997). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Sociolinguistics (pp. 443-463). Palgrave, London.

Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT press.

• Account details

AQA GCSE Psychology Language, Thought and Communication

This section provides revision resources for AQA GCSE psychology and the Language, Thought and Communication chapter. The revision notes cover the AQA exam board and the new specification. As part of your GCSE psychology course, you need to know the following topics below within this chapter:

• AQA Psychology
• Language, Thought and Communication

We've covered everything you need to know for this memory chapter to smash your exams.

• The latest AQA GCSE Psychology specification (2023 onwards) has been followed exactly so if it's not in this resource pack, you don't need to know it.
• We've provided practice questions at the end to help you get better with this topic.
• Completely free for schools , just get in touch using the contact form at the bottom.
• Teachers can print and distribute this resource freely in classrooms to aid students and teaching.
• Instant download, no waiting.

What is the Relationship Between Language and Thought?

For language, thought and communication, the GCSE psychology specification states you need to know the following for this section:

• Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought.
• The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: thinking depends on language.
• Variation in recall of events and recognition of colours, eg in Native American cultures.

A big difference between humans and other animals is our ability to use language to communicate. Animals do use communication however they do not use a language as humans do.

Research also seems to indicate that animals are unable to use complex thoughts which may mean that language and thoughts are connected as it is evident among humans. There are different theories that attempt to explain the relationship between language and thought; the two we will be focusing on are:

• Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought.

We covered Piaget’s theory in the GCSE psychology development topic , however, it is also relevant here.

Piaget’s work was important as it helped us understand how humans develop cognitively and he believed this cognitive development also led to the growth of language. This would mean that we are only able to use language at a level that matches our cognitive development.

According to Piaget’s theory , children will develop language in four stages :

• In the sensorimotor stage , babies are still discovering what their bodies can do, including the ability to make sounds. Babies then learn to copy the sounds they hear other people making.
• At the pre-operational stage , children are egocentric and focus only on themselves. They use the language they have developed to voice their internal thoughts, rather than to communicate with other people.
• During the concrete operational stage , the ability to use language has developed significantly however children use it to talk about actual concrete things.
• Once children reach the formal operational stage , they can use language to talk about abstract, theoretical ideas.

Piaget believed that while all children move through these stages, some people do not get to the formal operational stage.

Evaluating Piaget’s theory: Language Depends on Thought

There are various criticisms of Piaget’s theory that undermines its validity, such as:

• Piaget created his theory based on the observation of his own children. As they were his own, they were unlikely to be aware that they were being observed as part of a study making the behaviour more natural. 
• However, an issue with this is Piaget may have let his own personal biases affect his judgement on what he was seeing. This lack of objectivity would affect the validity of his findings.
• Piaget also recorded his observations on his own. The findings would be more reliable if the observations were recorded using another researcher so they could compare results. If the results were similar, they would have inter-observer reliability however if they were different it would prove that the study lacked consistency and reliability. As he did not do this, there is the argument that the findings lack reliability and validity.
• The sample Piaget used was small and much of his research was based on observing his own children. Therefore his findings cannot be generalised and said to apply to all children.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf and is also sometimes referred to as the concept of Linguistic Relativity .

This theory states that our thoughts and behaviours are affected and formed by the language we speak .  This would mean that cultures with different languages and vocabulary will have very different ways of thinking and understanding things.

As part of their theory, Sapir-Whorf suggested that language may, therefore:

• Lead us to focus on certain ways of seeing and understanding things.
• Make some ways of thinking easier and more likely than others.
• Lead to a memory bias whereby the ability to recall or retrieve certain information is increased or decreased.

Sapir-Whorf provided evidence for their hypothesis by studying indigenous languages. Whorf compared Native American languages with English and used the Hopi’s as an example due to their use of different words for “time” and the Eskimo’s large number of words for “snow”.

The theory suggests that the language we speak influences how we focus, see and understand things . For example, even within the same language, there are cultural and generational differences in the way words are understood. Take a phone or camera, they are now very different compared to the previous generations and this will ultimately affect how people think about them.

The Sapir-Whorf theory also suggests that through being familiar with recent meanings of words as they evolve, this will likely affect how people make connections as to their meanings. For example, if you were tasked with writing a description for the words “orange” and “cloud”, you may write about them being more than just a fruit and a cloud in the sky. You may refer to the fact that Orange is a mobile phone company and “cloud” also refers to a form of storage for data.

Below is a great explanation that breaks down Linguistic Relativity, aka Sapir-Whorf’s theory, in an easy to understand way:

Evaluating Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

• Sapir and Whorf’s hypothesis has been criticised and some of their methods have been deemed unreliable, for example, Eskimo’s have approximately the same number of words for snow as people who speak English. Whorf also never met anyone from the Hopi tribe himself.
• Books and other forms of written literature can be translated into completely different languages without them losing their meaning to readers.
• People who may grow up without a language, or those that lose the ability to speak such as stroke victims, are still able to think.

Variation in Recognition of Colours

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests the language we speak can lead us to focus on certain ways of seeing things . The theory argues that this can make some ways of thinking more likely than others.

Some languages do not distinguish between colour variations. For example, The Tarahumara Native Americans from north-western Mexico, have one word for both blue and green. Researchers found that English speakers perceived bigger differences between shades of blues and green than Tarahumara speakers.

The Russian language also has different words for lighter and darker blues. Researchers found that Russian speakers were more likely than English speakers to recognise differences between two shades of blue.

Variation in Recall of Events

The Sapir-Whorf theory suggests our ability to recall certain information is affected by the language we speak .

Researchers have studied how English speakers and Spanish speakers described intended and accidental actions. Participants were asked about things like seeing someone accidentally bump and knock over a vase. When the action was intended, all the participants were able to correctly identify the person responsible. When the action was accidental, English speakers were able to identify the person correctly more often than Spanish speakers.

English speakers also had a much better recall of who was involved in accidental actions than Spanish speakers when the participants recall of intended action was tested.

Differences Between Human and Animal Communication

For Differences Between Human and Animal Communication, the GCSE Psychology specification states you need to know the following:

• Limited functions of animal communication (survival, reproduction, territory, food).
• Von Frisch’s bee study.
• Properties of human communication not present in animal communication, eg plan ahead and discuss future events.

Animals don’t use language to communicate as humans do, however, they do use a form of vocalisation which is a form of communication with sound.

Birds, for example, sing, insects chirp while animals like lions or cats may growl. The messages conveyed by animals through vocalisation are similar to what humans may communicate such as expressing interest in a mate, showing alarm or letting others know they need to back off .

Research into animal communication has also found similarities between non-verbal communication between humans and animals. For example, in primates, similarities include the use of facial expressions to convey emotion, using body posture to show dominance or submission and the use of touch for bonding and reassurance.

Here’s a good video discussing animal communication:

Limited functions of animal communication

As the video above shows, research into animal communication has shown that it is far more complex and elaborate than we initially thought.

In general, however, animals do use communication for far few purposes than humans do and we can break this down into four main reasons: survival, reproduction, territory and food.

Animals use communication in a number of ways to aid in their survival. 

For example, animals may call to their young should they wander away, use alarm calls to warn others of the presence of a predator or use threat signals such as showing their teeth, making themselves look bigger and growling, to warn others to back away.

Reproduction

Animals communicate to aid in reproduction and do so not necessarily through sound but actions and displays.

For example, some animals use colour displays (such as peacocks and their colourful tails) to attract a mate and ensure reproduction. Other animals may also use colours to frighten or warn off predators.

Territory/Food

Research by Karl von Frisch found that bees communicated to each other on where to find food using dance-like movements. 

Ants have also been found to communicate with one another using different chemical smells called pheromones. Pheromones can be used to convey a variety of different messages including the location of food.

Other research has found that rhesus monkeys made unbroken eye contact and began to behave aggressively as a means to show dominance. Eye contact is believed to be used as a way to display dominance by the monkeys because they perceived the researchers as threatening.

Karl Von Frisch’s Bee Study 1950

Aim: To investigate how bees communicate the location of a food source to each other.

Study design: A field experiment was conducted in real-world settings. The participants, in this experiment, were the honeybees. Von Frisch still manipulates the independent variable, but there is limited control of extraneous variables.

Method: Food sources for a hive of bees were created by placing glass containers of sugar-water at different locations. A hive with glass sides was used so that the behaviour of the bees could be easily monitored. When the bees visited the sugar-water containers to feed, they were marked with tiny spots of different coloured paints to easily identify them when they returned back to the glass hive. The researchers then observed and recorded their behaviour and movements upon returning to the hive after visiting the food source.

Results : The bees were observed to be making different movements that appeared to depend on how far away the food source was from the hive. For example, when the food source was no further than a 100 metres from the hive, the bees did a round dance (picture A) by turning rapidly in circles to the right and then left.

When the food source was moved further away, the bees performed a tail-wagging dance (picture B), moving forward in a straight line while wagging their abdomens from side to side, before turning in a circle towards the left. This was then followed by the bees moving straight forward again before turning in a circle towards the right. This pattern of behaviour was repeated a number of times.

Karl Von Frisch found that the number of turns a bee did within fifteen seconds of “waggle dancing” actually communicated how far away the food source was. He also found that bees used the straight part of the dance to communicate where the food source was in relation to the current position of the sun.

Conclusion : Von Frisch concluded that bees use a variety of different movements to communicate to each other the distance and direction of food sources.

Evaluating Karl Von Frisch’s Bee Study 1950

• Von Frisch’s research is important as it was one of the primary studies into animal communication and influenced other researchers to conduct research into animal communication.
• The results from his bee study have been found to be reliable as when others have recreated it, they have found similar results. This consistency (reliability) in findings allows us to be more certain that the results are trustworthy and valid.
• The artificial setup of sugar-water and bees having to gather this from glass containers is not natural or indicative of the everyday behaviour of bees. Due to this setup, the study could be argued to lack ecological validity.
• Researchers did find putting a sugar solution on flowers also resulted in the bees acting the same way which indicates the setup is valid and can be generalised to real-world settings for bee behaviour.
• Another limitation is the use of glass hives. Bees do not normally live in such hives and this may have affected their behaviour however subsequent research that has replicated the study using wooden hives has had similar results. Another argument for their behaviour by researchers is that in order to find food, bees may also use cognitive maps based on their memory of landmarks.

Properties of human communication not present in animal communication

Human communication and animal communication may share some similar properties, but only human communication contains all properties. These are known as the design features of language .

Two properties unique to human language and communication is productivity and displacement .

• Productivity is the ability to create an unlimited number of different messages. It allows language to be used creatively and is not found in animal communication. Von Frisch’s bee study could vary the messages they conveyed by their dancing but there are limits to what they can say. For example, they do not appear to have movements or signals that mean up or down.
• Displacement is the ability to communicate about things that are not present or events that have yet to happen in the future. This allows language to be used to plan ahead and discuss future events. Planning behaviour displayed by animals, for example squirrels storing nuts for winter, are likely to be due to innate or instinctive forces rather than communicated ideas.

Evaluating Design Features of Language

• It is difficult to say for certain which properties of language are design features used exclusively by humans as we do not fully understand animal communication. More is being learnt about animal communication all the time.
• Although some animals, such as Koko the gorilla, can use the same properties of communication as humans, this behaviour is not naturally occurring behaviour and such animals may therefore be simply imitating humans.
• There are also ethical concerns around testing such research on animals. Keeping wild animals in captivity and training them to behave in ways that are not natural to them is considered ethically cruel.

What is Non-Verbal Communication?

For Non-Verbal Communication, the GCSE Psychology subject requires you to know about the following:

• Definitions of non-verbal communication and verbal communication.
• Functions of eye contact including regulating flow of conversation, signalling attraction and expressing emotion.
• Body language including open and closed posture, postural echo and touch.
• Personal space including cultural, status and gender differences.

Non-verbal communication can be simply defined as a way of conveying messages without the use of words .

For this topic, we will focus exclusively on ways in which we communicate without the use of technology i.e. text messages, email etc. This can however include aspects of speech such as the tone, pitch or volume of someone’s voice. It can also include visual cues such as eye contact and body language.

Communication that uses words is called verbal communication. This can involve talking to someone or reading a letter.

The Functions of Eye Contact

Although we may not be aware of how they play a role, eye contact and movements have a very important function in communication .

Research has found that when someone is about to finish speaking, they give the other person a prolonged look. In experiments where speakers have worn dark glasses, research has found that when we cannot see someone’s eyes, we are unsure when they are going to finish speaking and when to start talking themselves. Wearing dark glasses in one experiment saw more pauses and interruptions which suggests one function of eye contact is to regulate the smooth flow of conversation.

Pupil dilation has also been found to express emotion. Dilation is when the pupils expand and look larger. In one research study, when young men were shown two pictures of the same girl and asked to comment on which was more attractive, the majority chose the girl whose picture had been altered to look more dilated. The pupils of the participants were also found to dilate when they looked at the altered photo.

Other research has also found that people have a preference to those that look at them more frequently. This may be a signal for attraction as we interpret a high level of looking as a signal of attraction.

With animals, posture is used to communicate dominance, threat and submission . Humans also use posture to communicate non-verbally.

For example, crossing arms during a conversation is known as a closed posture. Psychologists believe this could indicate rejection, disagreement or feeling threatened. When people have their arms uncrossed in a relaxed position, this is known as an open posture . This is believed to indicate acceptance.

Some research studies have found that the posture someone adopts influences how much they are liked. Having an open posture is seen to increase people’s perception of the individual as friendly and attractive. Closed postures mean you are more likely to be seen as unfriendly and less attractive.

People that tend to get on well together are seen to adopt one another’s posture when having a conversation. This is known as a postural echo. Research studies have found that a postural echo gives an unconscious message of friendliness and people are more liked when they use it.

Touch is another form of non-verbal communication and a powerful signal that can produce unconscious emotional reactions.

There is a huge difference between different cultures on the amount of touch that is permitted between individuals with western societies being less restrictive than some eastern societies.

Research by psychologists has found that touch can lead to people being favoured more positively . One study measured the attitudes of students who return their library books. The librarian briefly touched them on the hand as they returned their books and subsequently reported to have a much more positive attitude towards both the library and librarian when compared to those who had not been touched.

Other research has found touch can be persuasive too . When you briefly touch other people, research has found they are more likely to agree to your request. One study measured the persuasive effects of touch where a man asked women to dance with him. When he touched a womans arm for a second, two-thirds agreed to dance with him. When the same man did not use touch, his success rate dropped by half.

Differences in Personal Space

Studies suggest there are a number of gender differences in personal space .

Men tend to have a bigger personal space boundary than women, and both genders prefer to have a greater amount of space between themselves and members of the opposite sex.

There are also gender differences in how we position ourselves when we are close to other people. Women prefer to sit next to their friends by their side while men prefer to sit opposite them.

Women tend to have their personal space boundary invaded more often by men than the other way around. Men feel more uncomfortable when their personal space is invaded from in front of them while women tend to feel more uncomfortable when their personal space is invaded from the side.

Other factors that affect personal space is age and personality. Research suggests people tend to sit or stand next to people if they are a smaller age. People with the personality types known as introverts tend to have a larger personal space boundary than those deemed extroverts.

Status is another factor that affects personal space. Studies have found that people tend to stand closer to others they deem to be of the same status as themselves compared to people of a higher status. People of a higher status feel more free to choose how close they are to someone.

Cultural norms are another factor that affects personal space. When comparing the personal space of groups of white English people and Arab people during conversations, results showed the comfortable conversation distance for white English people was between 1 and 1.5 metres. For Arab people, this was much less than that suggesting culture is a mitigating factor for personal space.

Explanations of Non-Verbal Behaviour

For Explanations of Non-Verbal Behaviour, you need to know the following For GCSE Psychology:

• Darwin’s evolutionary theory of non-verbal communication as evolved and adaptive.
• Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is innate, eg in neonates and the sensory deprived.
• Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is learned. Yuki’s study of emoticons.

Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory of Non-Verbal Communication

• Darwin suggested several principles for the evolution of non-verbal communication that expresses emotions. One of these principles is serviceable associated habits. A serviceable behaviour is one that has a purpose, for example, humans may have used biting as an early form of self-defence. In a similar way to animals, early humans may also have exposed their teeth as a threat signal. A serviceable associated habit happens when we have a similar experience, but the behaviour now does not serve the same purpose. The behaviour is now therefore a habit that is associated with feeling a certain way or certain situations. This could therefore explain why people expose their teeth when they have an angry facial expression.
• Another principle Darwin suggested was the principle of actions due to the constitution of the nervous system. This means that some forms of non-verbal communication are actually caused by our nervous system. For example, dilated pupils and an open mouth are part of a frightening facial response, but they are also the same effects of adrenaline being released into our bodies by our nervous system during the fight or flight response.
• Pupil dilation increases visual information and allows us to potentially see the best way to avoid danger. An open mouth increases oxygen supply which allows us to move away from a threat much faster. Pupil dilation can also happen when we are attracted to someone and also makes us more attractive. A high level of looking is also interpreted as a signal of attraction. These cues are examples of non-verbal communication which help with reproduction.

Evaluation of Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory of Non-verbal Communication

• Research evidence supports Darwin’s theory. Medical evidence supports the idea that the function of our nervous system causes certain actions, such as pupil dilation. Other research into neonates also suggests that some non-verbal behaviours are innate and biologically determined (genetics).
• A criticism is that non-verbal behaviours can also easily be explained by learning through observation rather than genetics. Social learning theory believes behaviours are learned through the observation and replication of other people. 
• It is possible that behaviours may be both innate and learned. When we are born we have the ability to cry and laugh but we can also learn to control them and use them in a way that fits in with social and cultural norms. Some behaviours however may serve no purpose in reproduction or survival such as the use of gestures.

Evidence that Non-verbal Behaviour is Innate

Darwin’s theory proposed that emotional expressions were innate or due to genetics. Facial expressions should therefore be the same across all cultures and research evidence suggests expressions for anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, fear and surprise are universally recognised by most cultures throughout the world. One experiment filmed people from Papua New Guinea telling a story using non-verbal communication. The film was shown to college students from America who were able to accurately identify the emotions they conveyed. This lends support to Darwin’s theory that non-verbal communication may be biologically determined. If this is the case, emotional expressions should also be found in neonates. The younger a baby is, the less likely that any expressions they display are learned through observations. Research into neonate facial expressions has shown that they use a pre-cry expression to convey sadness, as well as smiling, disgust, pain and surprise. This further supports the argument that some facial expressions may be innate behaviour. Research has also focused on babies who are sensory deprived (e.g. born blind). If facial expressions are learnt then they should not convey the same behaviour as those not blind as these would not have been observed. Research has shown that babies born blind have smiling behaviours that are similar to those with normal sight. Other research used 4800 photographs of sighted and blind athletes to compare the facial expressions they made at significant moments. Researchers found that both the sighted and blind athletes expressed their emotions in similar ways.

Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is learned

There is also a body of evidence to suggest non-verbal behaviour is a learned response .

Yuki’s study of emoticons suggests the way we interpret facial expressions is in part due to culture and nurture (learning) .

For example, non-verbal communication and speech are closely linked. This is seen in the way eye contact is used to help the flow of a conversation. This form of non-verbal communication is learned at the same time we learn to use language with both learned through social interactions. This is supported by the historical and generational changes in how non-verbal communication has been used.

Masaki Yuki’s Emoticons Study 2007

Aim : To investigate if culture affects how facial cues are used when understanding other peoples emotions.

Study design : A questionnaire with standard questions for all participants and a rating scale from 1 to 9. Participants consisted of American and Japanese students.

Method : Yuki showed participants emoticons with six different combinations of eyes and mouths. The eyes and mouths were happy, neutral and sad. Participants were then asked to rate how happy they thought each face was.

Results : The Japanese students were found to give the highest ratings for the faces with happy eyes and the lowest ratings for the face with sad eyes. American students tended to give the highest ratings to the faces with happy mouths and the lowest ratings to the faces with sad mouths.

The results showed that Japanese and American people may give more weight to different parts o the face when interpreting another person’s emotions. The Japanese students focused more on the eyes while the American students focused more on the mouths. This would suggest a difference in their understanding of facial expressions.

Conclusion : Yuki concluded that this happened because people learn their own cultural norms on expression and interpretation of emotions. Yuki suggested the results may be related to how openly a culture expresses emotion. For example, the eye muscles are not as easy to control as those around the mouth and therefore the eyes may be seen as the most truthful facial cue in cultures that limit their emotional expressions (such as Japan).

In western cultures such as the USA where open emotional expression is normal, the mouth may be seen as the best guide to interpret emotions.

Evaluating Masaki Yuki’s Emoticons Study 2007

• Yuki’s study is important as it provides support for the theory that non-verbal behaviour is learned to some extent.
• A criticism of Yuki’s study is emoticons were used instead of real faces. Trying to interpret an emoticon is not natural or part of everyday behaviour. Therefore the study lacks ecological validity.
• A strength of the study is when Yuki used photos of people instead, the results were still the same.
• Another criticism is the participants were aware they were part of a research study. This may have affected the responses they gave and they may have displayed demand characteristics. The researchers may have also given subtle clues as to the answers to participants and this may also invalidate the results.
• The participant sample was also very limited because they consisted of only students. This means the results can not be generalised to other age ranges of people that are younger or older.
• The study only looked at the basic emotions of happiness and sadness. Therefore. the findings cannot be generalised to other facial expressions and other emotions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get Free Resources For Your School!

Welcome Back.

Don’t have an account? Create Now

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Create a free account.

Already have an account? Login Here

Professional Development

Exams admin, qualifications.

Centre Services

Art and Design

Computer Science

Design and Technology

Food preparation and Nutrition

Mathematics

Media Studies

Physical Education

Religious Studies

All subjects

Biology (8461)

Chemistry (8462)

Combined Science: Trilogy (8464)

English Language (8700)

English Literature (8702)

Geography (8035)

History (8145)

Mathematics (8300)

See all GCSEs

AS and A-levels

Biology (7401)

Business (7131)

Chemistry (7404)

Geography (7037)

History (7041)

Physics (7407)

Psychology (7181)

Sociology (7191)

See all AS and A-Levels

Other qualifications

Applied Generals

AQA Certificate Mathematics

Entry Level Certificates

Project Qualifications

Unit Award Scheme

All qualifications

Our training

Course finder

About our training

Online training

Face-to-face training

Inside assessment

Courses by theme

Effective exam prep

Exams officers

Getting started with AQA

Virtual communities

Courses by subject

All professional development

Dates and timetables

Non-exam assessment (NEA)

NEA, coursework and controlled assessment

Deadlines for non-exam assessment

Record forms

Submit marks

Exams guidance

Question papers and stationery

Access arrangements

Special consideration

Results days

Results slips

Grade boundaries

Results statistics

Post-results services

Exam certificates

All Exams Admin

Assessment Services

Associate Extranet

Become an associate

All About Maths

Stride Maths

News and Insights

AQI research and insight

Inside exams podcast

GCSE Psychology 8182

GCSE Psychology Specification Specification for first teaching in 2017

PDF | 683.58 KB

3.2 Social context and behaviour

• demonstrate knowledge and understanding of psychological ideas, processes, procedures and theories in relation to the specified Paper 2 content
• apply psychological knowledge and understanding of the specified Paper 2 content in a range of contexts
• analyse and evaluate psychological ideas, information, processes and procedures in relation to the specified Paper 2 content and make judgements, draw conclusions and produce developments or refinements of psychological procedures based on their reasoning and synthesis of skills
• evaluate therapies and treatments including in terms of their appropriateness and effectiveness
• show how psychological knowledge and ideas change over time and how these inform our understanding of behaviour
• demonstrate the contribution of psychology to an understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity
• develop an understanding of the interrelationships between the core areas of psychology
• show how the studies for topics relate to the associated theory.
• designing research
• conducting research
• analysing and interpreting data.

By carrying out practical research activities, students will manage associated risks and use information and communication technology (ICT).

3.2.1 Social influence

3.2.2 language, thought and communication, 3.2.3 brain and neuropsychology, 3.2.4 psychological problems.